| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | No — transfers blocked | ChainSift simulation | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Sell tax | No data | Contract | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Admin mint | No data | Contract | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | No data | Contract | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Address blacklist | No data | Contract | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No data | Contract | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Source verified | No | Block explorer | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 52.3% | Holder distribution | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Liquidity locked | No | LP holders | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Holders | 1007 | Token contract | 17 Oct 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0x3d6ac4…435b86 |
| Holders | 1,007 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract | 0xfa5223…a253b1 | 11.13% |
| #2 · contract | 0xcdb573…140d3d | 10.43% |
| #3 · contract | 0xa824f1…3eb839 | 8.69% |
| #4 | 0xba6a6f…adf56e | 4.60% |
| #5 | 0xfd92f4…2a7eda | 3.00% |
This automated check scored 4D (Base) 2 out of 18, and the findings point to several mechanics worth understanding before going further. The simulation found that selling is currently blocked by the contract — this is the kind of behaviour associated with honeypot tokens, where buying is possible but exiting a position is not, meaning holders could be unable to sell their tokens for the underlying asset. The ten largest wallets hold 52.1% of total supply, which means a small number of addresses could move or sell a large portion of tokens at once, something that can affect price and liquidity for everyone else holding the token. The contract's source code is not verified on the block explorer, so its actual logic cannot be read in human-readable form — only raw bytecode is available, which limits what any automated or manual review can confirm about mint functions, pausability, blacklisting or upgrade paths (these show as "no data" above because they could not be assessed, not because they were ruled out). Liquidity is also not locked, meaning whoever supplied the trading pool could withdraw it at any time, which could leave buyers holding tokens with no market to sell into.
It's worth being clear about what this check does not cover. This is an automated read of contract mechanics only — it simulates transactions and inspects what's available on-chain. It says nothing about who is behind the project, how tokens are allocated or vested, whether any roadmap or marketing claims are accurate, or whether there is any legal entity standing behind the token. A contract can show no risk flags at all and still be tied to a team with no track record or intent to abandon the project, and conversely a verified, flagged contract isn't automatically a dead end. Intent and quality of execution are human questions this tool cannot answer.
Before putting any money in, it would be worth independently verifying the contract source on the relevant block explorer yourself, checking whether liquidity is genuinely locked or burned using a third-party LP lock checker, and looking at the distribution of the top holders to see whether large wallets are exchange or team addresses rather than independent holders. It's also worth testing sell behaviour with a very small amount first, researching the team's public presence and history, and treating an unverified contract with no liquidity lock and blocked selling as a combination that warrants particular caution and further independent research.
Contracts change after they are checked. Tell us where to reach you and we will say when this one does. Free for three contracts, no account.
We checked 18 points out of 100.
The other 82 are where money is usually lost: who the team is, where the tokens sit, what the documents actually say, and what the project chose not to put on its front page.